No Time to Die production thread

18028038058078081208

Comments

  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    Connery - Brosnan operated on a floating timeline. Like The Simpsons, or superhero comics. Events from DN to AVTAK still happened in some form for Dalton and Brosnan, just later on.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited June 2020 Posts: 7,518
    I guess.

    It's just annoying, because the books obviously were one timeline, and then they shoehorned a pseudo-timeline into the release order of the films, which was only rearranged from the novels for the financial benefit of the film studio. There saying, at the same time, that there is a loose timeline (as @Agent_One is saying), but also, there isn't. Until sometimes, there is.

    Maybe it's just my preference, but I'd like it a lot better if they didn't try for a long floating timeline and just told independent stories. Throw in a two-parter here and there if they want to (CR, QOS), but not as a rule.
  • Posts: 623
    I've sometimes thought, a franchise with a Bond-like character who, throughout the films/episodes/whatever, died just as often as succeeded. Then, in each entry, you truly wouldn't know if he would get out of his current predicament or not. Edge of your seat stuff. ;)

    Has our attention span really gotten that short?

    I think I must look at the Bond films differently than most here.
    I'd rather think Bond is the same character, played by different actors, all triumphing at the end of the film and never dying.
    I suppose it's a childish thing, reading those Fleming paperbacks when I was young.

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And yes, no-ones saying you're wrong for not wanting him to be killed, we're just saying it could make sense going forward if that's what they wanted to do.

    Yes. I think people really just need to throw away the concept of continuity between Bond films. Would it have made sense for Bond to die in Skyfall and come back for Spectre? No. Would it make sense for Bond to die at the end of Craig’s tenure and have a new actor come and tell new Bond stories? Why not?

    There is no reason why not. There is also no reason why he shouldn't get married again. There is also no reason why he shouldn't retire and bring up a clone child. There is no reason why he doesn't join a monastery. There is no reason why he shouldn't become become M, and Nomi take over as 007 and for Bond just to turn up at the start of every one of her future adventures. It's fiction. Anything can happen. But does that mean that it would be good?

    Forget the film series for one minute. Have you all read John Gardner's novels? You happy with Bond shagging Felix Leiter's daughter? You happy with him not being a Commander any more? Him going to Disney Land? You happy with him going through all the stupid stuff he does in those novels?

    For me, it's the same. Just because fiction allows him to do those things, doesn't mean it can't harm the character. The Gardner novels have the reputation they have for good reason (and I'm a bigger fan of Gardner than most).

    Anyway - we won't know till NTTD comes out. I'm just making a point.

    I am enjoying the points being raised by everyone.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited June 2020 Posts: 7,518
    shamanimal wrote: »
    I've sometimes thought, a franchise with a Bond-like character who, throughout the films/episodes/whatever, died just as often as succeeded. Then, in each entry, you truly wouldn't know if he would get out of his current predicament or not. Edge of your seat stuff. ;)

    Has our attention span really gotten that short?

    I think I must look at the Bond films differently than most here.
    I'd rather think Bond is the same character, played by different actors, all triumphing at the end of the film and never dying.
    I suppose it's a childish thing, reading those Fleming paperbacks when I was young.

    8-| I mean, Bond is the same character, played by different actors, all triumphing at the end of the film and never dying, so literally 100% of us are on the same page there.
    Your last comment is just sarcasm, or something, and isn't worth responding to. We've all read and loved Fleming's novels, and it doesn't have much to do with the current discussion.
    I'm arguing that the timeline issues presented in the films are a result from a deviation from the novels.
  • Posts: 725
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Resurrection is not a term that makes sense in what we're talking about - it's a reboot. New person, new timeline. You understood that so why are you rolling with this weird resurrection thing? What was Daniel Craig if this next Bond reboot would be a resurrection?

    If he dies in a 2020 movie, and he's back in 2025, without any kind of Conan-Doyle style explanation of how he cheated death, then you can call it a 'reboot' all you like - I still call it daft.

    You can call it daft till the cows come home and go back to work in the morning. Most people won't care. Just like most people didn't care that Batman was not retired in BvS after Dark Knight Rises. People understand what reboot is.
  • Posts: 623
    No Nick, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic with that last line. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I can see, reading it back how it came across snotty.
    The four Craig films, are a lot nearer to Fleming than the previous four films, (I started a thread on this), but killing him off in the fifth is a little too naff and broad and rubbish for it even to happen. It won't happen, but it's been fun discussing it.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited June 2020 Posts: 7,518
    Denbigh wrote: »
    And yes, no-ones saying you're wrong for not wanting him to be killed, we're just saying it could make sense going forward if that's what they wanted to do.

    Yes. I think people really just need to throw away the concept of continuity between Bond films. Would it have made sense for Bond to die in Skyfall and come back for Spectre? No. Would it make sense for Bond to die at the end of Craig’s tenure and have a new actor come and tell new Bond stories? Why not?

    There is no reason why not. There is also no reason why he shouldn't get married again. There is also no reason why he shouldn't retire and bring up a clone child. There is no reason why he doesn't join a monastery. There is no reason why he shouldn't become become M, and Nomi take over as 007 and for Bond just to turn up at the start of every one of her future adventures. It's fiction. Anything can happen. But does that mean that it would be good?

    Forget the film series for one minute. Have you all read John Gardner's novels? You happy with Bond shagging Felix Leiter's daughter? You happy with him not being a Commander any more? Him going to Disney Land? You happy with him going through all the stupid stuff he does in those novels?

    For me, it's the same. Just because fiction allows him to do those things, doesn't mean it can't harm the character. The Gardner novels have the reputation they have for good reason (and I'm a bigger fan of Gardner than most).

    Anyway - we won't know till NTTD comes out. I'm just making a point.

    I am enjoying the points being raised by everyone.

    You're not wrong at all, and I'm not saying the death of Bond would be a good thing necessarily.

    I guess all I'm saying is that, in the quest to tell the best stories possible, saying "Bond can't do this, can't do that, and must do this other thing" or "you must connect your story to twenty five other stories" only serve to contain and limit.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Resurrection is not a term that makes sense in what we're talking about - it's a reboot. New person, new timeline. You understood that so why are you rolling with this weird resurrection thing? What was Daniel Craig if this next Bond reboot would be a resurrection?

    If he dies in a 2020 movie, and he's back in 2025, without any kind of Conan-Doyle style explanation of how he cheated death, then you can call it a 'reboot' all you like - I still call it daft.

    You can call it daft till the cows come home and go back to work in the morning. Most people won't care. Just like most people didn't care that Batman was not retired in BvS after Dark Knight Rises. People understand what reboot is.

    I'm not sure comparing the Bond franchise to the way the DC universe has panned out is the soothing balm you think it is.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    shamanimal wrote: »
    No Nick, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic with that last line. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I can see, reading it back how it came across snotty.
    The four Craig films, are a lot nearer to Fleming than the previous four films, (I started a thread on this), but killing him off in the fifth is a little too naff and broad and rubbish for it even to happen. It won't happen, but it's been fun discussing it.

    Cheers. And I agree with you, that I think, the way the Bond films are, it would be the wrong choice to kill off Bond in NTTD to end Craig's tenure. I think I'm just an idealist who wishes, generally speaking, the Bond films were more "standalone" than "floating timeline", for the sake of creativity and storytelling. Not to say I don't love the Bond films we got.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited June 2020 Posts: 280
    I don't think that's the problem most of us have @Shardlake. OHMSS, LTK, CR and SF are all departures from the established formula, and they're some of my absolute favourites in the series. It's not the fact that it's different, it's the way that it's different.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.

    Who is this a response to? Who wants this?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.

    You have deliberately misread every single post in this thread. We could easily call you a simple minded happy clapper who'll lap up whatever rubbish BB or MGW throw out into the world. We don't though. Because it wouldn't be fair.

    Some of us here don't want James Bond 007 to be either a) Killed off, b) get married and bring up a family, or c) bring up a clone child.

    Personally, I am baffled that this seems to be a controversial stance to take.

    Full respect to those on here who are engaging in the debate in good faith.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Good response @NickTwentyTwo. We can disagree on this topic without being disingenuous, surely? This has been a good debate.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited June 2020 Posts: 7,518
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.

    You have deliberately misread every single post in this thread. We could easily call you a simple minded happy clapper who'll lap up whatever rubbish BB or MGW throw out into the world. We don't though. Because it wouldn't be fair.

    Some of us here don't want James Bond 007 to be either a) Killed off, b) get married and bring up a family, or c) bring up a clone child.

    Personally, I am baffled that this seems to be a controversial stance to take.

    Full respect to those on here who are engaging in the debate in good faith.

    For the record, I wouldn't want Bond to do any of these things either. ;) But for me it's just because I have a hard time imagining a James Bond story in which they do happen, but if someone smarter than me comes along and makes a brilliant story that somehow incorporates clone children, power to them.

    Also, I wouldn't be totally opposed to Bond remarrying, to be honest.
    Good response @NickTwentyTwo. We can disagree on this topic without being disingenuous, surely? This has been a good debate.

    Agreed! Love jumping in and making a lot of noise here and there. :) And I've always enjoyed our engagements.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,834
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Would it make sense for Bond to die at the end of Craig’s tenure and have a new actor come and tell new Bond stories? Why not?

    Why not? Because in the previous film, erm... James Bond died.
    Again @shamanimal, it would be a separate continuity. It would be a different Bond with his own new backstory to fit with the age of whoever they cast, with no connections to the Bond's before, even Craig. He is a new James Bond with his own adventures and character development, like Craig was, and will still be based on Fleming's creation - so yes it would still make sense if Craig's Bond died. I don't know how many more ways I can say it.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited June 2020 Posts: 280
    It somewhat saddens me to think that the original Film!Bond, who married Tracy, killed Blofeld, saw his best friend mutilated, squared off against another 00 and who acomplished and lost so many other things in 20 films went out with...Die Another Day.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,518
    Agent_One wrote: »
    It somewhat saddens me to think that the original Film!Bond, who married Tracy, killed Blofeld, saw his best friend mutilated, squared off against another 00 and who acomplished and lost so many other things in 20 films went out with...Die Another Day.

    Lol I'd never thought of this, and it is depressing. :P The solution? Cast away your thoughts of "two film Bonds". ;)
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.

    You have deliberately misread every single post in this thread. We could easily call you a simple minded happy clapper who'll lap up whatever rubbish BB or MGW throw out into the world. We don't though. Because it wouldn't be fair.

    Some of us here don't want James Bond 007 to be either a) Killed off, b) get married and bring up a family, or c) bring up a clone child.

    Personally, I am baffled that this seems to be a controversial stance to take.

    Full respect to those on here who are engaging in the debate in good faith.

    I don't because I despise SPECTRE, although some people just want the character a particular way and if that isn't the case they should sell up and move on.

    Because lets face it the films have done terrible money and Craig isn't very popular in the role.

    They aren't making the kind of film you want or others, so its rubbish right?

    I can't stand the PB era but they kept the series more than a float, look you can't expect to like all of them and all of the eras.

    Maybe the next era will more your wildest dreams.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Denbigh wrote: »
    shamanimal wrote: »
    Would it make sense for Bond to die at the end of Craig’s tenure and have a new actor come and tell new Bond stories? Why not?

    Why not? Because in the previous film, erm... James Bond died.
    Again @shamanimal, it would be a separate continuity. It would be a different Bond with his own new backstory to fit with the age of whoever they cast with no connections to the Bond's before, even Craig. He is a new James Bond with his own adventures and character development, like Craig was, and will still be based on Fleming's creation - so yes it would still make sense if Craig's Bond died. I don't know how many more ways I can say it.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I/we get that. It's just that even with this in mind, some of the stuff being proposed would be too much. I responded further up the thread about this, that other hero lit/film series don't kill off the character. I know that you are correct, technically. The question is would it be good. If you think it will be, or are open minded about it, then fine. Personally, I think it will kill the franchise, it if isn't already dead.

    I had my theory/suspicions/fears that the direction taken in the Craig years will kill the series, and all I hear about NTTD is confirming that. I need more time to outline exactly why, so maybe that's for another time.

    But yes, you can reboot him on another timeline with the same character. Whether you should is another matter.
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited June 2020 Posts: 280
    Agent_One wrote: »
    It somewhat saddens me to think that the original Film!Bond, who married Tracy, killed Blofeld, saw his best friend mutilated, squared off against another 00 and who acomplished and lost so many other things in 20 films went out with...Die Another Day.

    Lol I'd never thought of this, and it is depressing. :P The solution? Cast away your thoughts of "two film Bonds". ;)
    My personal coping mechanism is the theory that James Bond is a Time Lord, but we all have different strategies :D
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.

    You have deliberately misread every single post in this thread. We could easily call you a simple minded happy clapper who'll lap up whatever rubbish BB or MGW throw out into the world. We don't though. Because it wouldn't be fair.

    Some of us here don't want James Bond 007 to be either a) Killed off, b) get married and bring up a family, or c) bring up a clone child.

    Personally, I am baffled that this seems to be a controversial stance to take.

    Full respect to those on here who are engaging in the debate in good faith.

    I don't because I despise SPECTRE, although some people just want the character a particular way and if that isn't the case they should sell up and move on.

    Because lets face it the films have done terrible money and Craig isn't very popular in the role.

    They aren't making the kind of film you want or others, so its rubbish right?

    I can't stand the PB era but they kept the series more than a float, look you can't expect to like all of them and all of the eras.

    Maybe the next era will more your wildest dreams.

    See my reply to your first post. You have just repeated the same points in the same tone. Just a series of straw man arguments.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Once again some people just want Bond frozen in time, they want the same films as they were before the Craig era.

    Lighthearted with no real stakes, just a fluff piece to while the hours away. There are plenty of these already previously out there.

    If anyone thinks they are going back to these frivolous sticking to a formula type ways are going to be disappointed.

    I'm throwing my toys out of the pram because this isn't my James Bond, BB & MGW aren't delivering the film I have in my head, therefore they must sell up and give it to someone who will make my wildest wet dream a reality.

    You have deliberately misread every single post in this thread. We could easily call you a simple minded happy clapper who'll lap up whatever rubbish BB or MGW throw out into the world. We don't though. Because it wouldn't be fair.

    Some of us here don't want James Bond 007 to be either a) Killed off, b) get married and bring up a family, or c) bring up a clone child.

    Personally, I am baffled that this seems to be a controversial stance to take.

    Full respect to those on here who are engaging in the debate in good faith.

    I don't because I despise SPECTRE, although some people just want the character a particular way and if that isn't the case they should sell up and move on.

    Because lets face it the films have done terrible money and Craig isn't very popular in the role.

    They aren't making the kind of film you want or others, so its rubbish right?

    I can't stand the PB era but they kept the series more than a float, look you can't expect to like all of them and all of the eras.

    Maybe the next era will more your wildest dreams.

    See my reply to your first post. You have just repeated the same points in the same tone. Just a series of straw man arguments.

    Who are you anyway?
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    edited June 2020 Posts: 280
    Well, call me crazy, but I think he's a human male. And, bear with me here, he might just live in England.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2020 Posts: 5,834
    For me @FatherValentine, it's all about context, so it'll really depend how it's done - if any of this is true. I can see both sides of the argument; seeing Bond die isn't exactly something we watch these movies for and why would we want that of the hero we root for?

    But at the same time it would offer something different and if they can pull it off, with it already making sense to me somewhat in terms of the tone of the Craig-era, it could work.

    It just really depends on how they do it, but...

    ...if he lives or dies, a reboot is the best option in my eyes - for business reasons and otherwise. Mainly I don't see how you could continue the continuity without casting someone of a similar age, and the problem with that is that you shouldn't do it without Craig, and either way, the series (while still successful) is in real need of a shake-up and a refresh.

    Following this continuity with an actor in his 50s isn't the best way to do that, so the best alternative is a reboot - but I should stress, that doesn't have to mean Origin Story 2.0, it's just a new and fresh 007 for the producers to have fun with.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Agent_One wrote: »
    It somewhat saddens me to think that the original Film!Bond, who married Tracy, killed Blofeld, saw his best friend mutilated, squared off against another 00 and who acomplished and lost so many other things in 20 films went out with...Die Another Day.

    Lol I'd never thought of this, and it is depressing. :P The solution? Cast away your thoughts of "two film Bonds". ;)
    My personal coping mechanism is the theory that James Bond is a Time Lord, but we all have different strategies :D

    Ha. I prefer scotch. Each to their own.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Agent_One wrote: »
    Well, call me crazy, but I think he's a human male. And, bear with me here, he might just live in England.

    Comedian?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Denbigh wrote: »
    For me @FatherValentine, it's all about context, so it'll really depend how it's done - if any of this is true. I can see both sides of the argument; seeing Bond die isn't exactly something we watch these movies for and why would we want that of the hero we route for?

    But at the same time it would offer something different and if they can pull it off, with it already making sense to me somewhat in terms of the tone of the Craig-era, it could work.

    It just really depends on how they do it, but...

    ...if he lives or dies, a reboot is the best option in my eyes - for business reasons and otherwise. Mainly I don't see how you could continue the continuity without casting someone of a similar age, and the problem with that is that you shouldn't do it without Craig, and either way, the series (while still successful) is in real need of a shake-up and a refresh.

    Following this continuity with an actor in his 50s isn't the best way to do that, so the best alternative is a reboot - but I should stress, that doesn't have to mean Origin Story 2.0, it's just a new and fresh 007 for the producers to have fun with.

    Well, on that I we agree. We got there in the end!
  • Agent_OneAgent_One Ireland
    Posts: 280
    My hope is that No. 7 is a soft reboot. No origin story, but no ties to the Craig era either. So basically, exactly like Moore - Brosnan in terms of continuity. Maybe even let Fiennes and Wishaw continue, please?
Sign In or Register to comment.